Loading...
Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1999 - 03/11 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Commission Members Present. Ross Obermeyer, Chairman Jeff McGregor, Vice -Chairman Pamela Smith, Secretary (arrived 7:35 p.m.) Mark Pacheco Jeffrey Kelley Commission Members Absent: Kevin Kerr Scott Neice City Staff Present: Marcie Diamond, Senior Planner Pam Conway, Secretary George Conner, Director Public Works Dan Tracy, Civil Engineer i Don Horton, Parks Director Jason Marshall, City Attorney's Office WORKSHOP MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A OUORUM With a quorum of the Commission Member's present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:13 p.m, by Chairman Obermeyeq at the City Council Chambers, Allen Public Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas. Commission Member Pacheco stated that on Page 9, Paragraph 5 of the February 25, 1999 minutes, the statement" a discrepancy was found in this neighborhood district regarding the number of complexes" Should actually read" . a discrepancy was found in the Comprehensive Plan for this neighborhood district regarding the number of complexes." The minutes will be revised accordingly The Commission requested clarification on the Public Hearing, Item 111. Ms. Marcie Diamond stated that the Commission should call a public hearing and consider appropriate zoning. Mr Jason Marshall, City Attorney's Office stated that as with any other zoning case, the Commission should consider the request and make a recommendation for zoning. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1999 REGULAR MEETING Consent Agenda Agenda Item II Chairman Obermeyer read the consent agenda into the record as follows. Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of February 25, 1999 Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Pacheco and a second by Commission Member McGregor, the Commission voted 4 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda with the changes to the minutes identified in the Workshop meeting. Motion Carried. PUBLIC HEARING S.H. 5 & Chaparral Rd. Agenda Item III Chairman Oberneyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: PAGE "Consider a request by the City of Allen to recommend appropriate zoning, being 22.262 ± acres of land situated in the MCBain Jameson Survey, Abstract No. 491, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being northeast of S.H 5 and Chaparral Road." Ms. Diamond presented the agenda item to the Commission. She stated that all property owners of the subject property and the property owners within 200 feet were properly notified. She stated that the City has initiated this zoning activity and is the applicant. She stated that if non-residential zoning is determined to be appropriate, then a Local Retail District would be appropriate. She stated that this district also permits garden office uses which are also compatible with residential and could provide a needed support use for the major employment and industrial uses to the west and north of this area. Ms. Diamond continued, and stated that in the event that multifamily is deemed appropriate, then this zoning request should be in the form of a Planned Development District so that development regulations can be included that address issues such as heights, setbacks, screening, openspace, etc. Therefore, the existing A -O District would be appropriate to allow for an application for a Planned Development District to be submitted. Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing. Doug Juin, 25 Crockett CL, Allen, stated that this area should remain residential. He stated that a lot of apartments are in this area and residential is what he would like to see in this area. Don Smith, 21 Crockett Ct, Allen, stated that he is strongly opposed the multifamily designation. He stated that the City of Plano has informed him of apartments just to the south of this property He recommends single family or light commercial. He recommends a Planned Development in order to J preserve trees, even the `trash" trees. He stated that those trees are large and provide shade and a visual 9 barrier. He also wants a barrier (wall) constructed to protect his residential area. He requested an alley- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1999 way for easier fire access. He also mentioned that TU electric stated there is a utility easement, and a grass alleyway is also recommended by TU. Todd Neely, 30 Crockett Ct., stated that he supports Mr. Smith's comments. He does not want to see multifamily Residential would be fine. Robert Humfleet, 1214 Collin Drive, stated that he would support single family He would like to see multifamily rather than commercial. He would like a buffer between any development and his single family neighborhood. Mike Williams, 2303 Forest Grove, Allen, stated that he agrees that single family developments are typically not located on a highway He believes multifamily is the best zoning. He stated that he is in favor of the apartments and feels it is proper buffering. He also would rather see multifamily than commercial. Denvil Mixon, 910 Spring Brook, stated that he is the owner of the property and he has a buyer and he supports the multifamily PAGE Jerry Green, 501 CR 157, McKinney, stated he is planning a very well designed, high end community (apartments). He stated that he understands the community's concerns and will address their concerns. He stated that this strip of property is not conducive to commercial use. The land is perfect for a nice apartment community He made a full presentation at the previous meeting, expressing his views at that time. Todd Neely, 30 Crockett Ct., stated that the gentleman whojust spoke (Mr. Green) should have no say in this public hearing, since he does not own this property and he doesn't live adjacent to the property Lowell Barton, 1106 Collin Drive, stated that he opposes a multifamily complex. He stated that he feels it would be an eyesore. It would be a wall of apartments. He would like single family He opposes light industrial, he stated that eating establishments sometimes present unpleasant odors, i.e. dumpsters, and also hazards such as broken glass, etc. A retaining wall is a must. With no one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed Commission Member Pacheco stated that at this public hearing he has heard a good cross section of opinions. His stated that he feels that Agriculture Openspace (AO) is appropriate zoning for this property Commission Member McGregor stated he would like to have a proponent request zoning, rather than the City. He also stated that he is in agreement with Commission Member Pacheco and would like it to remain as it is (AO). Commission Member Kelley stated that until a proposal is before us, he agrees with Commission Member's McGregor and Pacheco to leave it as it is. Commission Member Smith stated that she is also in agreement with the other Commissioners to leave the zoning as it is. She stated that the opinions at the public hearing are rather split and nothing has changed her mind,just leave it as it is. Chairman Obermeyer stated that it is very important to consider who owns this property and he agrees with the other Commissioners that he would like to see a good plan come before the Commission and judge the merits of that request. He would like to leave it AO also. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE Commission Member McGregor stated that there has been good public turnout for this public hearing and any zoning case in the future on this property should take these comments into consideration. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to leave the zoning on the property as it is, which is Agriculture Openspace (AO). Motion carried. Findings: I It is unprecedented in our city to impose zoning without the owner. 2 Current zoning is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Current zoning is not undesirable. 4. Concern regarding the objections of the property owner, which a change in zoning would impact. 5. An application for a Planned Development district would allow the City to add development standards to assure compatibility with surrounding developments. 6. Not a real clear-cut opinion stated at the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Allen Village Ltd. Agenda Item IV Chairman Obertneyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for zoning action by Allen Village Ltd. for a Specific Use Permit (S U.P.) for Gasoline Sales. The property is a 1.2 ±acre tract of land situated in the Michael See Survey, Abstract No. 543, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being at the southeast comer of McDermott Drive and Alma Drive." Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission She stated that this is Tract 4 of Planned Development 26, which is zoned as a shopping center district. This district permits a service station by Specific Use Permit (S.0 P.) It has come to the attention of the staff that there are private deed restrictions on the property. The applicable provisions of the deed restrictions are added to the P.D. regulations to allow for enforcement by the City, including: • Maximum height of 24 feet, • Building materials are limited to brick, glass and/or stucco, with tilt wall permitted on the rear wall; • An eight foot masonry wall will he required along the entire length of the southern and eastern boundary lines of the entire Tract 4 of this PD prior to the construction of any development within this tract; and • No rears of buildings shall be placed on McDermott Drive. It should be noted that these restrictions require that the eight -foot masonry wall along the property lines of Tract 4 be erected prior to the development of this comer for retail. Normally, this wall would not he constructed until the property adjacent to the single family homes develops. Staff recommends approval based on site plan, elevation and conditions as submitted by the proponent. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MARCH 11, 1999 J Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing Bob Roeder, 1700 Red Bud, Suite 300, McKinney, stated that he is representing the owner. He stated that prior to this meeting he has had meetings with the Watters Crossing neighborhood to work with them and bring about something beneficial to all concerned. The eight foot masonry fence will be constructed. This is just a one acre corner which is part of a larger tract. There will be other buildings between the gas station and the residential neighborhood. He is aware of the lighting codes required by the City of Allen. He stated that this is a very appropriate use. He intends to conform to the architectural standards, and stated that it will be harmonious with the rest of the shopping center. John Tmdeau, 1217 Bel Air, stated that another gas station in this area would displace other needed uses. He also wrote on his speaker card "the public would not be served by the addition of another gas station in a one mile radius." Tim Burchell, 100 Brentwood Ct, stated that he is opposed to the gas station. He wrote on his speaker card "there appears to be sufficient density of gas stations from Central to Alma without an additional station " Kay Johnson, 200 Fairfax Dr, stated that she is not totally opposed; however, she noted that if this is approved there will be 3 automotive related businesses in a small area. It seems to be an "auto row" Will the lighting be different from across the street9 (Texaco) She stated that it is very bright. Ron Price, 1102 Belvedere, stated he is opposed to the gas station. He lives in Watters Crossing, and he is indirectly affected. He stated that the proponents have indeed done a good job in meeting with the people. However, the people still don't want it. He stated that Allen has enough fuel related business. He stated there is no reason to change the original zoning. He also wrote on his speaker card "another gas station is not needed in this vicinity, especially next to an adjacent single family development" Dale Richey, 1210 Bel Air Dr. (not present at the time, but filled out a speaker card) He wrote on his speaker card "There is no need for another gas station. The Exxon station at US75 and McDermott closed for lack of business. There is another station across the street. Gasoline and 7-11 type store does not serve this neighborhood. 1 also oppose the storage facility proposed for the same comer. It brings rats, looks ugly and belongs near the railroad It is not even nice enough for U.S. 75. Why do you let it be in our upscale neighborhood. I oppose the automobile service proposed for the same site. So do 50 others at the Watters Crossing meeting a month ago.' Duke Bond, 109 Ventura Ct, stated that he is not totally opposed to a gas station; however, he would like to see the overall picture of what is planned for that property He doesn't feel gas would be a big hindrance; however, he would rather not see it. He would like the entire exterior done consistently He feels he must see the total property He would like to see nice stone walls like the rest of the community Be would like to see that kind of attractive work at this comer also. Proper lighting and signage is requested. Texaco lighting does illuminate excessively Chairman Obermeyer stated that a gas station is allowed by SUP on this property. Commission member Smith stated that the purpose for the SUP is so that the Commission can see the site plan. Jack Wills, 109 Sieita, Allen, stated that he opposes the lube and car wash. It isjust another "auto center" along McDermott. He wrote on his speaker card "concept plan includes oil and auto wash." PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE Terry Benner 207 Fairfax, stated that her concern is the Texaco mentioned earlier. It's the lighting on the sign. She suggested the lights could be turned off when the facility is not open. Maybe that could be I addressed in the S.0 P being considered tonight. Mr. Bob Roeder stated that he would like to clear up some issues raised by the homeowners. The S.U.P is the only zoning matter. No other zoning will be changed on this property. Brick, glass and stucco are the only materials allowed. The lighting will be shielded by the other structures, which will be built between the gas station and the residences. With no one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Member Smith stated that she would like to see something attached to the exhibit regarding the lighting. She also requested the entire P.D. 26 regulations that would address architecture. Ms. Diamond stated that the P.D. states it shall be developed in accordance with the shopping center standards There are no other restrictions. Commission Member Kelley stated that he heard people speaking tonight about allowing car wash, lube, etc. This request is not to change the zoning but to add a S.U.P for a gas station, which is already allowed. He stated that at a major intersection is where you want your gas station. Whether a gas station is a great thing to have is not the issue. We are not here to debate that. We will focus on the tract for the gas station. He discussed with Mr. Roeder the fire lanes, and the area for the fueling trucks. Mark Hickman, 1315 E. 19 Street, Suite 2A, Plano, addressed the fuel lanes He demonstrated where the fuel tanks were located on the concept plan displayed. The truck will be out of the fire lane when dispensing the fuel. The car wash will not be blocked at the entrance or exit. Commission Member Kelley stated that handicap access is not designated and he just wanted to point that out He stated that the citizens have raised concerns regarding the lighting. The canopies are so well lit that they are distracting even when driving by. The lights are very intense He finds it very objectionable. Commission Member Kelley stated that we can place stipulations in the S.U.P that the canopy lights be shielded. Ms. Diamond stated that we would be looking at the ordinance in regards to lighting It is appropriate to say that they shall be shielded at this time. Also, part of the private deed restrictions the lighting is limited to down light only. Commission Member McGregor asked about the drive thru. Ms. Diamond stated there are no restrictions in this P D. regarding a drive thru. Commission Member McGregor discussed the signage with Mr. Hickman. It was also noted that the private deed restrictions stated the buildings should not he over 24 feet in height. Commission Member Pacheco asked about the height of the canopy. Mr. Hickman stated 16 to 20 feet at the top of the canopy. Commission Member Pacheco stated that he is also a Watters Crossing resident. He assumed this would be a gas station site. Four times as much landscaping is being provided as is required by zoning. He would support this request Chairman Obermeyer stated that he has no concerns and it is a good location. El Commission Member Smith asked Mr. Roeder to repeat his comment regarding architecture. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE Mr. Roeder stated that they would provide building materials, which would be harmonious with the rest of the site. Mr. Roeder stated that his proponent is developing some of the other parcels, but not all. Commission Member Smith asked how she could impose the other proponents to develop harmoniously? Jason Marshall, City Attorney's Office stated that the action the Commission takes tonight would be for this tract (SUP area) only There is not a way to impose this upon other proponents; however, the City will enforce the zoning, therefore adding the deed restrictions into the P.D. regulations for this S.U.P could be appropriate. Commission Member Kelley stated that he is not ready to adopt any deed restrictions. He stated he doesn't know what the deed restrictions say. He does support adding the deed restrictions, which are applicable to this site. Jason Marshall stated that if you know what the deed restrictions are or not doesn't change anything They are still on the property and adding them to the zoning simply gives another avenue of enforcement. Mr. Roeder read some of the deed restrictions He stated that all of the operative restrictions have been added into the provisions for this S U.P Commission Member Smith stated that we can not make the harmonious architecture happen tonight. Commission Member Pacheco stated that we are simply looking at the service station comer tonight. Chairman Obenneyer stated that the 8 foot masonry wall is applicable, and will be constructed with the gas station. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Kelley the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the request for S.U.P. for a Service Station with the attached conditions, as included in the staff recommendation. The motion carries. A. Concept Plan: The property shall be developed in accordance with the Concept Plan and elevations. B. Building Height: No building or other structure or improvement shall be erected or placed on this tract having a height of greater than two stories or 24 feet above the surface of the property. C. Building Construction: The front and sides of any and every building erected or placed on this tract shall be constructed only of brick, glass and/or stucco. The rear of any and every such building may be constructed of aggregate tilt wall in addition to or in lieu of any of the foregoing materials. D. Fence: Upon the commencement of construction of any improvements on this tract, the owners of the property shall construct an eight foot fence of PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MARCH 11, 1999 masonry along the full length of the eastern and southern boundary lines of this tract. E. Building Direction: No building shall be constructed on this tract with the rear of such building facing McDermott Drive. F. Parking Lights: Any and every light pole constructed to illuminate a parking area on this tract shall reflect the light downward directly to the parking area. Findings 1. Appropriate use for an intersection of two major thoroughfares. 2. Lighting concerns addressed. 3. Fueling aspects addressed (tanks). 4. Safety concerns addressed. 5. Proponent worked with the neighbors to address concerns. 6. Agreed to enforce the more stringent deed restrictions. PRELIMINARY PLAT Lost Creek Ranch Agenda Item V Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request by Ryland Homes for a Preliminary Plat for Lost Creek Ranch, being 376.7 ± acres of land located in the Berry Merchant Survey, Abstract No. 800, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, further described as being west of Malone, south of Stacy Rd. and north Exchange Parkway." Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated this zoning was approved late last year. There has been a reduction of the overall density The number of lots is below the maximum 1,257 units that are allowed by zoning. They are looking for a neo-classical design. A total of 25 32 acres have been designated as either public or private parkland This does not include 7.6 acres of flood plain. There is a 14 -acre elementary school site identified along Harvard Dr, which is a collector street that will connect to Allen Heights Drive. The proponent has also indicated a willingness to realign the streets to save as many trees as practical at the time of final engineering Chairman Obermeyer noted that the material in the packet was so small that they cannot read it Ms Diamond stated she would provide larger copies in the future. Although the front yard building lines are properly delineated, the dimension is not noted in Phase V. and will he 25" and that dimension will be noted at final platting. Ken Howell, Carter and Burgess ,7050 Elmbrook, Dallas, stated that a number of people have looked at this layout (land planners, architects, etc.) They didn't want to create just another development. They wanted to create community, a neighborhood. They did not want just dwellings, or products. They want homes, offering security and refuge The openspace is the heart of each neighborhood and PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE the is located strategically, generally speaking about a 5 minute walk from each home. All roads lead to the parks. There are numerous lots with immediate adjacency to the parks. There are active parks. There are public and private openspaces. There is a linear park, which could serve all ages. There is a four -season park. It could be available for soccer, for T -ball and a tot -lot. He stated there was a need for detention area They wanted to make something out of that and it is the promenade. It will take mundane space and make something very visually pleasing, and is a good place for the water drainage. Basically, their intent was to make a child friendly community Don Horton stated that the promenade would also be private. He concurs with the product. He stated that they have taken a retention area and made it an asset to the city. It is private and will be maintained by the homeowners association. He stated that he support this plan and agrees that it will work very well. Commission Member McGregor asked about the trees. Mr. Horton stated that most of the large trees are along the creek and at final plat he sees no problem with minor adjustment. Ms. Diamond stated that City Council is going through a policy analysis and they want to create quality communities and well planned neighborhoods, such as this. Commission Member McGregor stated concern regarding the school site. He questioned if there would be 2 points of ingress and egress? Mr. George Conner stated that Bobby Curtis, AISD, has been at the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meetings on this plat. He has indicated he is happy with this layout of the Collector Street. Mr. Conner also stated that this Fire Marshall is also satisfied. Ms. Diamond stated that a facilities agreement will be entered into prior to the final plat. She stated that we are providing for the construction of Allen Heights. Brad Meyer, Carter and Burgess stated that the facilities agreement will address any issues. Commission Member McGregor stated that some of the street names are getting close to other names already used in the City Ms. Diamond stated that staff would again verify the street names Commission Member McGregor questioned Lot 10, Block W, if a side yard setback needed. Mr. Meyer stated that is actually a rear yard, a set back for rear or side yard will be added, however. Commission Member Smith stated that east of the school site there appears to be screening that screens the development from itself. Mr. Meyer stated that this is something they wanted to do. It will buffer the residence from the road. Commission Member Smith stated that this plat is like what she would like to see more often. She believes they have taken into account what is best for the City. Commission Member Pacheco questioned the detention pond. Mr. Meyer stated that preliminary drainage has been done. There will be a 3 -tiered pond and it will be done hydraulically There will be a natural edge around the pond There will be a green space between the Crepe Myrtle's and the pond. Commission Member Pacheco expressed concerned about the amount of homes in phase one and asked if temporary access was needed out to Malone. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE 10 Ms. Diamond stated that the Fire Marshall would look at the request regarding the access when the first phase of the final plat is submitted for review Mr. Conner stated that the alley adjacent to the retail site may be an appropriate location for a temporary access point. Commission Member Pacheco stated it is evident that a lot of planning has gone into this plan. He stated that the concept plan was very different from what is being presented tonight. There is a lack of curvilinear streets. Mr. Meyer stated that this plan is several million dollars more than the curvilinear street concept. They want the views to be into the park area. This plan allows for that view. The curvilinear streets would not allow for those views Commission Member Pacheco stated that the view would also be a lot of homes all in a line. He has a real problem with it because of the lack of curvilinear streets. Chairman Obermayer stated that he doesn't disagree with Commission Member Pacheco, however, he believes this is a good plan. I le questioned Lot 22, Block G, there is a large tree. He requested they try to save that Pecan Tree. Mr. Meyer stated that Mr. Bob Sheldon had the same concern regarding the tree, and they will consider the request. Commission Member Kelley stated that this plan is a departure from the curvilinear streets. He personally believes the long allevs are a danger to children However, he stated he feels this is a good plan. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Kelley the Commission voted 4 FOR and 1 OPPOSED to approve with the following staff recommendations below Commission Member Pacheco was opposed. Motion carried. (1) Consummation of a facilities agreement for perimeter streets, off-site utilities, and Park Development prior to the approval of the first final plat for this subdivision. (2) The front yard building line dimension, which is 25 feet, should be noted on Phase V when the final plat is considered. (3) Realignment of streets to save hardwood trees, to the exent possible, at the time of final platting. PRELIMINARY PLAT Reid Farm Addition Agenda Item VI. Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows "Consider a request by Harris — Allen, L.P for a Revised Preliminary Plat for Reid Fann Addition, being 50.783 ± acres located in the Henry Wetzel Survey, Abstract No. 1026, in the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located southwest of Stacy Road and S.H. 5:' PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE Il Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that this is a revison to a plat that was recently approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The purpose of this request is to align this entrance with the entrance planned for the parcel located at the southeast comer of Stacy Rd. and S.H. 5. These two entrances will be aligned with one of the medians planned between Stacy Rd. and the median planned for the Spring Meadow subdivision. The number of lots in this subdivision has not been affected by this amendment. Staff recommends approval of the revised plat subject to the following stipulation: One of the following conditions must exist prior to the issuance of any building permit in this subdivision. 1. Notre Dame Dr. and Sunrise Dr. are permanently constructed as part of the Spring Meadow subdivision. 2. Notre Dame is constructed with asphalt on a temporary easement that accesses S.H. 5. 3. Asphalt pavement is constructed on a temporary access easement from Wagon Wheel Dr. to S.H. 5. Mr. Jim Haddock, 2219 Seville Ct., Arlington, stated that without this revision the property to the east, (Hunt Property) would not get a median cut and this property (Reid Farm Addition) would have had 2 median cuts. He stated that this is a win- win situation for both properties. Ms. Diamond stated that she received a letter from the property owners east of this property, Hunt Petroleum Corporation, stating that they are not opposed to this request. After discussion with the Commission members and the proponent, it was recommended that �a either lots 8 or 9, Block E could be asphalt paved for temporary access if needed. ®J Commission Member Smith stated her concern regarding no collector. Mr. Conner stated that they have discussed it and this acceptable, no collector is needed here. Commission Member Smith stated her concern with this subdivision being off S.H. 5 and not knowing what kind of traffic may come into the subdivision. She stated her concern about the circulation of traffic. Richard DeOtte stated that some additional traffic may go out Notre Dame to the south He stated that there had been discussion with staff. Ms. Diamond stated that Notre Dame is a collector street. Mr. Conner stated that a traffic study is not done on subdivision this small. He does agree that Notre Dame needs to be a collector. Commission Member Smith continued to discuss the streets. Mr. Conner stated that this plan is better for the Hunt property to the east. This will make less median openings. Commission Member McGregor asked if any agreement was reached with the adjoining property regarding the alignment of some streets. Mr. Haddock stated that they would be working together. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member McGregor the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the request with the amendment of Notre Dame alignment be coordinated with the adjoining subdivision and PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE 12 be 60 feet wide; and subject to the staff recommendation The motion passed. One of the following conditions must exist prior to the issuance of any building permit in this subdivision: 1. Notre Dame Dr. and Sunrise Dr. are permanently constructed as part of the Spring Meadow subdivision. 2. Notre Dame is constructed with asphalt on a temporary easement that accesses S.H. 5. (on lots 8 or 9 of Block E). 3. Asphalt pavement is constructed on a temporary access easement from Wagon Wheel Dr. to S.H. 5. Other Business Agenda Item V I. Discussion of the Crossing at Watterford 2. Items of Interest to the Commission 3. Tentative Agenda Commission Member Smith questioned Ms. Diamond if staff would be looking at the ordinance addressing collector streets Ms. Diamond stated that staff would like defined criteria, because it would be mutually beneficial for staff as well as the proponents. Mr. Conner agreed Ms. Diamond discussed the Crossing at Waterford. She stated that it has been determined that there is a discrepancy between the actual motion to approve P.D. 72 and the P.D. conditions in the ordinance. Ms Diamond stated that the final plat would be required to provide for a single loaded street because it is in accordance with the zoning. She stated that the City Council indicated that the intent of their motion to approve this zoning was that the street adjacent to the flood plain shall be continuous from the Crossing at Watterford, through the Fitz -Gerald Tract and eventually into P.D. 54. Chairman Obermeyer stated that it may have been the intent of the motion, but it wasn't in the motion and he stated that the Commission couldn't address the intent when its not written in the motion. He stated also that the preliminary plat that the Commission approved was a good plan. Chairman Obermeyer read the City Council's motion: "Streets adjacent to the west side of the creek be a single -loaded street which can be broken with intersection and turns." He noted that no where does it state that any streets should continue into the next subdivision and that even in the strictest instance, the Commission complied with this sentence. Mr. Marshal stated that the final plat must be in accordance with the ordinance Commission Member Smith stated that the Council needs to make sure that their zoning ordinances are written the way they intended. They need to make sure that their ordinances we in conformance with their motion and is written the way they intended Commission Member McGregor stated it seems that what is written on paper should override the intent. He stated that it seems like the Commission made the right decision based on the Ordinance that they had, maybe the City Council should look reconsider PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 13 MARCH 11, 1999 ' Ms. Diamond noted the upcoming items. She also noted some training opportunities. Adiourn. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to Adjourn the March 11, 1999 meeting at 10:31 p.m. These minutes approved this V' day of 1999. Z,4'� / -- 2.�- C�� oss Obermeyer, Chairman Pamela Smith, Secretary C L